Religion and public policy

Malaysia and monotheism

In the name of Allah

DO Christians and Muslims worship the same God? It is never hard to find to devout followers of either faith who answer that question with a resounding negative. Evangelical Christians were dismayed when George W. Bush welcomeda group of Muslims to the White House with the words: "We see in Islam a religion that traces its origins back to God's call on Abraham. We share your belief in God's justice..."

Actually, the "same God" question is not one that a monotheist can meaningfully ask. The question does make perfect sense for an atheist (who thinks that all gods are human constructs), for a polytheist, and indeed for a henotheist—a member of a tribe that worships one deity but accepts there may be others. But for a logically consistent monotheist, God's "sameness" must remain supremely unaffected by the legitimacy of the worship offered by one or other group of human beings.

But that doesn't stop monotheists arguing about the question, and it can cause violence on the streets as well as common-room debates. A fresh, unhelpful contribution came from a Malaysian appeals court which has just affirmed that non-Muslims must not use the world "Allah" when referring to God in any public context. This is the latest twist in a saga which began in 2007 when the government banned the use of the word "Allah"—which is the usual word for God in the Malay language—by the Herald, a Catholic newspaper. It also confiscated thousands of copies of the Bible printed in Indonesia which used the word "Allah" for God. In December 2009, the Kuala Lumpur High Court overturned that ban, and in reaction there was a wave of attacks on non-Muslim places of worship, including Christian churches and Sikh temples.

This week's decision, restoring the ban, was justified by a three-panel judge on the grounds of Islam's vulnerability to conversion efforts by other faiths. "It is my judgment that the most possible and probable threat to Islam, in the context of this country, is the propagation of other religions to the followers of Islam," said the chief judge, who added that the use of the word Allah was "not an integral part of the faith in Christianity." The story will not end there: the Herald's editor, the Reverend Lawrence Andrew, has said he will appeal to the highest court.

Whatever the Malaysian judiciary ultimately decides, it will not stop Christians in the Arabic-speaking world, and in countries where Arabic influence has been strong, from calling on the name of Allah. Go into any traditional church in the Middle East and you will hear the chant: "Quddusan Allah, Quddusan al-Qawi" ("Holy God, Holy and Strong...")

That chant is said to have originated in Greek-speaking Constantinople, but the chances are that people were singing something similar in Semitic languages, of which Arabic is one, for centuries before. In 2010, as mobs rampaged, Malaysia's opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, made a thoughtful comment on the issue. He insisted that Muslim scholars outside Malaysia found the claim to a monopoly on "Allah" absurd. After all, "Arabic's sister Semitic languages" also used very similar words for the Deity, namely Elaha in Aramaic and Elohim in Hebrew. "Historical manuscripts prove that Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians and Jews have collectively prayed to God, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, as Allah for over 1,400 years," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

When it comes to calming passions on the street, arguments about monotheism may have little impact, but a bit of broad historical perspective certainly does no harm.

Thank you; this was very interesting for me, because I spent three years living and working in Malaysia, and found it something of an enigma. 90% of it seems commendably pluralistic: I remember having lunch at an Irish pub on Jalan Ampang in downtown Kuala Lumpur, and leaving just as the mosque over the road was finishing its prayer services on Friday. So stepping into the street, the proud, a small group of well-oiled infidels passed the pious worshippers, and we all bade each other a hearty greeting. My next door neighbor invited the whole block to his house for the traditional Hari Raya (Eid) feasting at the end of the Muslim holy period of Ramadan, so his garden was full of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and probably a few atheists, all enjoying the moment (and the food - Malaysian cuisine is up there with the best in the world). In the crowded markets, Muslim housewives in modest dresses and head-coverings jostled with young ethnic-Chinese Malaysian girls in short skirts and skimpy tops for the best bargains.
And then at other times, I would wander into a bakery on Jalan Bukit Bintang - just opposite Starbucks - to see a sign in Malay that read: "Muslims are reminded that purchasing or consuming food during the daylight hours in the holy season of Ramadan is an offense under the law; severe penalties will be brought against offenders." Just outside the city was a gambling mecca known as the Genting Highlands: there, signs on the casino doors darkly warned Muslims against entry. And a court was hearing a case about a Muslim woman who was seeking the "right" to convert to Buddhism. The Malaysian Constitution even states that all ethnic Malays are Muslim, though other races are free to be whatever they choose. But then, where else in the so-called 'Muslim world' would a curious traveler even find Irish pubs and gambling resorts?
So with all that in mind, this article reminded me of the recent furor in the US over the word 'marriage.'
What's in a word, for Dionysus' sake?

This week's decision, restoring the ban, was justified by a three-panel judge on the grounds of Islam's vulnerability to conversion efforts by other faiths.
.
In short, the chief judge is saying that, in his opinion, Islam cannot stand up to other faiths. Which is a really, really pathetic view of his own religion. (And inaccurate, too, in my observation.) Sad that some people are so insecure in their faith.

I am surprised that no-one has commented on how the judges arrived at their conclusion. They simply gave their opinion based on their subjective view of the facts. They did not quote any case law or evidence to justifiy their decision. They made no reference to the constitutional right of all Malaysians to freedom to practice their religion. The court's ruling is flawed and unworthy of the judiciary in Malaysia.

The dream that was Malaysia died a long time ago. There was a time not out of memory of those with teenage kids - that to visit a factory canteen was to see Malays of all backgrounds eating together. Nowadays the divide and conquer method to hold power by paying homage to the so called Bumis and the conservative fringes (of which this act is) has resulted in the undermining of the democracy, a lack of competition in the workforce, insane corruption and ridiculous quotas systems which have made those qualified and well heeled flee the country, despite the fact a Malaysia without those of ethic Indian and Chinese origin would be too terrible to consider.

Keep it up Najib - you would see this country burn if only to keep your position as king of the ashes.

As a non-Malaysian living in M'sia, I've heard many stories concerning different religions and races. F.Y.I. the federal constitution says each individual citizen has the right of practising his/her own faith, but things turn to another side once it is associated with Islam. A couple of years ago, Lina Joy, a converted Christian from Muslim, filed an appeal to change her religion on her ID card, but High Court rejected her appeal since two of the three chief justice thought the issue was under jurisdiction of Syariah Court(Islamic court), only the one from Borneo thought rejecting her request was against the spirit of the constitution and it was discriminational.

There is a conspicuous trend that M'sia government is posing more Islamic rules on non-Muslim Malaysians. The state can easily say someone deceased was a Muslim and deprived his/her family from holding a Hinduism/Christianity/Buddhism funeral. How could someone's own family doesn't know his/her true religion, but let the government holds the final judgement.

As the holy word Allah, people who are in favor of the ban showed concern that Muslims may be distracted if Christian church uses the same word to referring God. If someone is really a devout follower of a certain religion, will s/he easily get confused between two dinstict religions just because they use the same word referring God?

"It is my judgment that the most possible and probable threat to Islam, in the context of this country, is the propagation of other religions to the followers of Islam"

I would simply point out that any religion that could be so easily undermined by competing religions and philosophies is propbably not very sturdy a structure to begin with. Moreover, any adherents to that religion who could be so easily swayed from their faith are probably not that committed to their faith to begin with.

Then again, I live in a country that cherishes (at least on paper) plurality of thought and religious freedom, so perhaps I have a cultural bias.

No one would be bothered to comment about the judges' decision because the Malaysian judiciary ceased to be independent since the Mahathir era. Whenever you see "court" or "judges", just read as the "Malay ethno-nationalist government" whose vote bank is anchored in bigoted, narrow-minded Malay Muslim voters. The latter's faith in Islam is apparently so delicate that they need to be protected from "confusion". Similarly with male Muslims in certain Muslim countries who cannot be charged with rape if they are "enticed" by so much as a naked toe protruding from under the victim's burqa. Stone the woman to death instead!

How about "deep respect" for Jews and OTHER politically disfavored or banned faiths or belief systems in Malaysia ( Baha'i)and in the Muslim World. Who gave YOU the right to pick and choose who deserves respect and HOW???

Argument, reason and logic do not apply to religion or faith and never will.
As with all "moderate" religions, interfaith peace comes not from the religions itself, but from asserting precisely those 3 concepts over religion.
We may be a long way off a world without superstition, but that unstoppable march continues.

The world audience has got to see through this political game seemingly played on the innocence of religion but in actual fact it is a calculated projection by the Muslim-dominated ruling UMNO-Malays to remind/warn the minority Chinese/Indian and Christian communities as to the supremacy of Malay/Islam in the so-called multi-racial, secular Malaysian nation.

Since the near defeat of the corrupt-to-the-core, incompetent,racist ruling UMNO-Malays in the May General Election, they have all but abandoned the nation's founding principles of multiculturalism, religious tolerance and harmony in a nation where the majority Muslim Malays enjoy only a marginal numeric superiority in demography. The extremist hard-core Malay racists have now gained an upper hand and they have decided that they shall not need the minority support any longer. They have willingly and deliberately succumbed to only garnering only Muslim-Malay support and the best way to facilitate such misguided support is to reinforce narrow Islamism and Malayness affiliation at the complete detriment to the basic rights of their minorities.

In a nutshell, the Muslim-Malays in the ruling UMNO is virtually giving their extremist constituents a complete free hand to attacking their hated minorities consisting of Chinese, Indians and Christians.

Allah is a generic word for God and has been used that way for thousands of years, including - as this article points out - in the bible. But Malaysia's supreme court is as familiar with history as it is with the law.

A post that advances the discussion on religionS on the next level. Plus some new vocabulary. I hope, I pray, to a power higher than me but for which I have no label and will always decline a label (rationale expounded repeatedly in other posts), that we don't see feedback comments that are back to noncomprehension resulting in volleys of parochial insult-tennis.
.
What else is there to say? Good to learn what George W. Bush had said about, and to, adherents of the Muslim religion. I happened to click on the link and discovered quite a different world of "Republicans". Perhaps he, like Jefferson, a person who did not conform to the idea of a "party person", read the Koran, which I never have.
.
Nice post, Erasmus.
.
PS: I am happy to learn labels are providing a lot of employment for lawyers and judges everywhere.

I am a Muslim from Malaysia and currently living in Malaysia. I feel I have to clarify what’s really going on here and why this Allah issue came up. This issue is regarding the use of the word Allah for the Bahasa Malaysia version of the holy bible, and not on the Christians per se.

Before I go further, I wish to say that Malaysia’s official religion based on the constitution is Islam (please understand that Islam is the official religion of the constitution because of the majority ethnic Malays are Muslims) We are a multi cultural and multi faith country comprising of mainly 3 ethnicities: Malays (majority), Chinese and Indians, and also many others.

Although it’s a country with Muslim majority, we practice a very moderate (at times borderline liberal) view of Islam. Here Muslim women are free to either wear the head cover or not. They are also free to wear tank tops and mini skirts and there are no religious police on female dress code commonly found in other Muslim countries.

Now, for ages our language; the Bahasa Malaysia had always used the word ‘tuhan’ to describe god. While Allah, a word borrowed from Arabs is widely and commonly used to describe the god for the Muslim faith.

I’m only a layman in religion, like most other Malaysians. I could tell you that if Allah is used to universally translate the word god it would cause a whole lot of confusion. The reasons are that it is due to our language and cultural understandings.

Take for example the Americans and British understanding for the word ‘football’. In America football is commonly known for the game played on grid iron. While football in the UK is understood as the game known in the US as soccer.

Roughly, that is the kind of confusion if Allah is used to describe god. Hence because of the language barriers, it is better that in Malaysia Allah is used to describe the god for the muslim faith and ‘tuhan’ the word for God.

Even in our Priciples of the Nation it stated Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan (Belief in God) and not Kepercayaan kepada Allah (Belief in Allah) when Malaysia have every right to state so being a Muslim country. But the the word tuhan (God) is used instead because the word based on Bahasa Malaysia reflects diversity and tolerance.

This Allah issue is very recently sensationalised, like 5 years ago by a minority of hardlined Christians, and does not represent the entire Malaysian Christians. For the past centuries this had never been an issue at all.

I have deep respect for Christians and I quote from the holy bible from time to time. If Jesus was here in Malaysia would you think he approved the use of the word Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia bible knowingly that it would cause tensions? Christianity teaches love and harmony

"...government banned the use of the word "Allah"—which is the usual word for God in the Malay language-"

Allah is God in Arabic, not Malay. Note and edit because that's something of value in this debate. Because of the fact that many Malays do not have the usual education in Arabic, they do not realise that Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and thus believe it is a different entity.

Someone please tell the fools in the court that an allah by any name is still an allah is an allah is an allah, even she is also Aphrodite, Juno and Athena, or if he is also Yahweh, Thoth or Thor. Indeed, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as a bona fide god of sprawling divinity, rough hewn though he may be, be yet an allah, in truth.